When A Resignation Is More Than It Appears: A Million Dollar Reminder About The Duty To Inquire

A recent Alberta Human Rights Tribunal decision has drawn attention for its more than $1 million damages award. While the result in Volpi v. Lifemark Health Corp is striking, the legal principles are well established.

What makes this case notable is not new law, but the exceptional combination of facts that led the Tribunal to find that an employer discriminated against a long-tenured, high-earning, high-performing employee by delaying his requested mental health leave. The employer then accepted the employee’s abrupt resignation without inquiring whether it was connected to his previously disclosed disability. For employers, the case is best understood as a cautionary example of how existing obligations (specifically the duty to inquire) can produce serious financial exposure in certain situations.

Background

David Volpi worked as a physiotherapist at a Calgary clinic for approximately 16 years. His supervisor described him as a “superstar.” Mr. Volpi had diagnosed mental disabilities, most notably bipolar II disorder, which he had first disclosed to his employer in 2009. He and the previous clinic director established an informal arrangement allowing Mr. Volpi to take time off when his mental health was deteriorating.

In 2015, a new clinic director took over without being told about Mr. Volpi’s mental health history, or his existing accommodation arrangement. When Mr. Volpi’s mental health deteriorated in 2016, he repeatedly asked for time off, told his supervisor that something was wrong, said he needed a break for his mental health, and offered to provide a medical note. The clinic director pushed out Mr. Volpi’s requested leave by several months, in light of the established vacation schedule.

On September 30, 2016, the day before his approved leave was to begin, Mr. Volpi abruptly submitted a brief resignation letter while in a hypomanic state, a symptom of his bipolar II disorder. His supervisor asked if anything could change his mind, but did not inquire whether the resignation was connected to his known mental health condition. In the weeks that followed, Mr. Volpi emailed his employer referencing “burnout” and later visited the clinic to discuss returning, but at no point did his employer inquire into his mental health or reconsider its acceptance of his resignation.

The duty to inquire

The Tribunal dismissed Mr. Volpi’s broader allegations of harassment and a toxic work environment, but upheld the complaint on two issues: the delay of Mr. Volpi’s leave request, and the acceptance of his resignation without inquiry into whether it was connected to his mental disability.

The duty to inquire arises when an employer knows (or reasonably ought to know) that there is a connection between an employee’s actions and a disability. While most commonly discussed in the context of a disciplinary matter, the Tribunal confirmed this duty extends to other common workplace events, including leave requests and resignations. It is noteworthy that the finding turned on a confluence of unusual facts: a 16-year employee with a known psychiatric diagnosis, a prior informal accommodation arrangement, express requests for a mental health leave that were delayed, an abrupt resignation submitted during a hypomanic episode, and post-resignation communications that signaled the decision was not a considered one.

The Volpi decision does not stand for the proposition that employers must second-guess every resignation. Rather the Tribunal found here that the employer, based on this specific fact pattern, “reasonably ought to have known that the complainant’s mental health contributed to his decision to resign” and “should have paused prior to accepting the resignation to make real inquiries as to the complainant’s mental state.”¹ The Tribunal also held that organizational knowledge was attributed to the employer since the former clinic director knew of Mr. Volpi’s disability and past accommodations, and that the employer therefore could not rely on the fact that the new supervisor had not been advised of the situation.

Remedy

In its remedy decision, the Tribunal awarded Mr. Volpi $40,000 in general damages for injury to dignity and $965,338.14 in lost wages, plus prejudgment interest from October 1, 2016. The size of the lost wages award was driven by Mr. Volpi’s high pre-discrimination earnings, but the Tribunal also applied meaningful reductions. It reduced his assumed income by 25% to account for billing changes the employer had been implementing, and limited the recovery period to approximately 10 years rather than the approximately 24 years Mr. Volpi sought. The Tribunal also ordered that the employer implement an accommodation policy at the relevant clinic location. The total monetary award exceeded $1 million before interest.

Practical takeaways for employers

• The duty to inquire is always fact-specific. The Tribunal confirmed that the obligation to pause and make inquiries can apply when an employer receives a sudden resignation, or a leave request that may be connected to a disability. This does not mean every resignation triggers a duty to investigate. It means that, where a significant pattern of warning signs is present, proceeding without inquiry may be risky.
• Approach sudden or unexpected resignations with caution where red flags exist. Where the circumstances surrounding a resignation suggest a possible connection to a disability, accepting immediately may create significant risk. Employers should consider consulting with an employee before treating the employment relationship as over.
• Document and communicate accommodation-related information. A change in supervisory personnel does not reset the employer’s obligations. Employers should have processes in place for retaining and sharing disability and accommodation-related information so that relevant personnel are informed.
• Have a clear accommodation policy and train supervisors. The Tribunal underscored that proper processes are not only best, but may be required as a remedy.
• Understand that human rights damages can be substantial. The lost wages awarded in this decision extended well beyond the initial period of unemployment, reflecting the earnings differential over an approximately 10-year period. In human rights proceedings, lost wage damages are not necessarily capped at a common law reasonable notice period, and where the facts support it, awards may reflect years of lost income.

The Volpi decisions are a reminder that even familiar legal principles can produce significant exposure when they are not followed in practice. Accommodation issues involving mental health require careful and proactive handling, and the cost of getting it wrong can be substantial.

Footnote

1. Volpi v. Lifemark Health Corp, 2026 AHRC 26 at para 191.